There’s not much I like about Newt Gingrich, but I have to admit that his Contract With America was a bit of marketing genius for the Republican Party. The Contract With America, if you don’t know, or don’t remember, was a specific set of legislative proposals which the Republicans, if elected to a majority, would pass.
Now the Democrats find themselves in the minority in both houses of Congress, and I really think they could use a similar marketing plan to regain their footing.
So what sort of items would be in a Democratic Contract With America?
The proposals, to make the list, would have to be something supported by 60% of the American people (as was the case with the Republican version), so we’re not talking about putting together a wish list for special interests, but rather something that a solid majority of Americans would really get behind.
Also, we need specific legislative proposals, not general aspirations, so please bear that in mind.
Any ideas?
(And yes, I realize we did this once before, about ten years ago, but I think it’s time for another crack at it.)
A lot of people dissatisfied with the ACA are dissatisfied because it doesn’t go far enough. If the Democrats don’t mind declaring war on the health-insurance companies, I think real single-payer health care might reach 60% support.
For both D or R or any other positions, a Contract has to be agreed to by both parties — how exactly do ‘The People’ assent and commit to whatever deranged propositions the policy wonks come up with ?
Exactly the same as with the Jewish Contract with God Almighty, the Lockean Contract and Rousseau’s Social Contract, these theories make a large leap into the Sea of Fancy and presume the absence of dissent in a way that makes the bolsheviks seem naive fools.
That was even supposing there is such an entity as ‘The People’, which there is not; and which is capable of making binding decisions, which is impossible.
Look, it’s not a social theory, it’s a kind of marketing package. All pols make campaign promises and both parties have a platform every election, this is just bringing the two together, a platform of partisan promises. There’s nothing naïve or dishonest about that as such.
It really was a great campaign strategy then and I think there’s room to pull in the centrist voters (either independent or centrist Pubs like me).
Things I could see selling well:
SSM Marriage protection (if the Supremes don’t make it irrelevant beforehand)
Expanding the EITC (it more directly targets the working poor than the minimum wage)
A small cost of living only minimum wage bill (adjust the 2009 last raise based on inflation since) and then put it on autopilot by indexing to CPI
getting the federal government out of the marijuana regulation business
strong protections of digital privacy
Are you aware that combined with programmed cuts, such an cut would put us below the NATO member target of spending 2% of GDP on defense? Are you advocating withdrawing from the alliance as part of the contract?
One election cycle does not a binding Covenant make.
It just seems a gaseous, orotund puffball of hypocrisy and vice. Or maybe that’s just Newt for you.
It seems to me that Democrats are victims of their own success. They’ve already done all the stuff that 60% of Americans wanted done. I can’t think of 10 items Democrats support that 60% of Americans support and haven’t happened yet. Perhaps an increase in minimum wage and the EITC? Those aren’t new policies though, just updating of old ones.
Democrats seem more in the business of preserving what they’ve gained than doing new things. Most of their new suggestions are either small-ball or they’d founder on the small detail of how to pay for it. ACA used up most of the revenue possibilities the Democrats had left.
I want universal health care.
I want lower interest rates for college loans.
I want an increase in minimum wage.
SSM must be legal in all 50 states.
I’d like to see marijuana be legal in all 50 states too.
Excellent ideas all, but definitely not supported by 60% of the voters. Especially not #4.
One sure winner that the Democrats should support, but won’t, is eliminating the ethanol mandate. It would be good for the environment, good for small farmers, and save money for anyone who buys food or gas.
You’d have to be really careful to not get into specifics. I think it’s the kind of thing people support for those other banks, not their own. As soon as people get a whiff of their bank going out of business and making them get new debit cards, checks, etc., they’ll balk.
And maybe we could link an increased tax on the wealthy to an infrastructure package. (Here’s what we’re going to do to improve our infrastructure. Here’s how we’re going to pay for it.)
Then I’d leave the part about banning corporate personhood (otherwise known as corporations) out. It’s one of those things that only sounds good to people who don’t understand it, like (from the Contract With America) the Balanced Budget Amendment or legislative term limits.
I’m all for SSM and legalizing marijuana and everything else, but the Dems really need to downplay the social liberalism and focus all their energy and attention on economic populism and fighting down the plutocracy. Leave SSM and pot out of the contract, they will be legal in every state eventually, the social/religious conservatives will mostly die out soon enough; but the 1% have a lot more staying power, and of every other kind of power save numbers.